Danielle M Minteer1, Patsy Simon1, Donald P Taylor1,2,3, Wenyan Jia4, Yuecheng Li5, Mingui Sun3,4,5, J Peter Rubin1. 1. Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this prospective clinical study was to validate two prototype pressure ulcer monitoring platform (PUMP) devices, (PUMP1 and PUMP2), to promote optimal bed repositioning of hospitalized patients to prevent pressure ulcers (PUs). Approach: PUMP1 was a wearable electronic device attached to the patient gown with no skin contact. PUMP2 was a set of four identical electronic devices placed under the patient's bed wheels. A video camera recorded events in the patient room while measurements from the PUMP devices were correlated with true patient repositioning activity. The performance of these PUMP devices developed by our research team were evaluated and compared by both clinicians and engineers. Results: Ten mobility-restricted patients were enrolled into the study. Repositioning movement was recorded by both PUMP devices for 10 ± 2 h and corroborated with video capture. One hundred thirty-seven movements in total were detected by both PUMP1 and PUMP2 over 105 h of capture. Two false positives were detected by the sensors and 11 movements were missed by the sensors. PUMP1 and PUMP2 never conflicted in data collection. Innovation: The presented study evaluated two different sensors' abilities to capture accurate patient repositioning to eventually prevent PU formation. Importantly, detection of patient motion was completed without contact to patient skin. Conclusion: The clinical study demonstrated successful capture of patient repositioning movement by both PUMP1 and PUMP2 devices with 85% reliability, 2 false positives, and 11 missed movements. In future studies, the PUMP devices will be combined with a SMS-based mobile phone alert system to improve caregiver repositioning behavior. Copyright 2020, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers.
Objective: The objective of this prospective clinical study was to validate two prototype pressure ulcer monitoring platform (PUMP) devices, (PUMP1 and PUMP2), to promote optimal bed repositioning of hospitalized patients to prevent pressure ulcers (PUs). Approach: PUMP1 was a wearable electronic device attached to the patient gown with no skin contact. PUMP2 was a set of four identical electronic devices placed under the patient's bed wheels. A video camera recorded events in the patient room while measurements from the PUMP devices were correlated with true patient repositioning activity. The performance of these PUMP devices developed by our research team were evaluated and compared by both clinicians and engineers. Results: Ten mobility-restricted patients were enrolled into the study. Repositioning movement was recorded by both PUMP devices for 10 ± 2 h and corroborated with video capture. One hundred thirty-seven movements in total were detected by both PUMP1 and PUMP2 over 105 h of capture. Two false positives were detected by the sensors and 11 movements were missed by the sensors. PUMP1 and PUMP2 never conflicted in data collection. Innovation: The presented study evaluated two different sensors' abilities to capture accurate patient repositioning to eventually prevent PU formation. Importantly, detection of patient motion was completed without contact to patient skin. Conclusion: The clinical study demonstrated successful capture of patient repositioning movement by both PUMP1 and PUMP2 devices with 85% reliability, 2 false positives, and 11 missed movements. In future studies, the PUMP devices will be combined with a SMS-based mobile phone alert system to improve caregiver repositioning behavior. Copyright 2020, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers.
Authors: Samuel R Nussbaum; Marissa J Carter; Caroline E Fife; Joan DaVanzo; Randall Haught; Marcia Nusgart; Donna Cartwright Journal: Value Health Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: William V Padula; Mary Beth F Makic; Heidi L Wald; Jonathan D Campbell; Kavita V Nair; Manish K Mishra; Robert J Valuck Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2015-06
Authors: Nancy Bergstrom; Susan D Horn; Mary Pat Rapp; Anita Stern; Ryan Barrett; Michael Watkiss Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Charalampos Siotos; Andrew M Bonett; George Damoulakis; Adan Z Becerra; George Kokosis; Keith Hood; Amir H Dorafshar; Deana S Shenaq Journal: Eplasty Date: 2022-06-13